Sunlight/UV (ultraviolet)-induced degradation is still a critical issue for outdoor applications of organic light-emitting diode (OLED) displays. Therefore, effective UV-blocking structures that can prevent OLED displays from sunlight/UV degradation and still keep the OLED panels’ display performance is necessary. In this report, modified distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) structures having UV-absorbing dielectric materials and adjusted layer/pair thicknesses were developed to realize effective UV blocking properties (nearly 0% transmittance below 400 nm), constantly high transmittance like glass in the visible range (∼92%) required for display applications, and sharp transition in transmission between the UV and the visible ranges. Furthermore, under the rigorous IEC 60068-2-5 solar test condition, it was verified that the developed modified, UV-blocking DBR can effectively enhance the OLED panel’s resistance against UV/solar-induced degradation, effectively reducing voltage shifts of OLED devices after repeated solar test cycles.
© 2021 Optical Society of America under the terms of the OSA Open Access Publishing Agreement
In the past few years, organic light-emitting diode (OLED) displays have become one of the most important display technologies and have gained wide applications in small-to-medium size applications, such as mobile or wearable devices. Thanks to the development of reliable materials and encapsulation technologies, the reliability of OLED displays has been acceptable for many indoor uses for years. Aside from general indoor and consumer applications, OLEDs are being extended to outdoor applications, such as wearable devices and car electronics. However, in current OLED display architectures, OLED displays would still suffer deterioration under long-term outdoor uses and sunlight exposure, due to degradation induced by the ultraviolet (UV) light (with wavelength λ<400 nm) and the high energy visible (HEV) light (with wavelength at 400-450 nm) [1–15]. According to the previous reports, UV/HEV light might cause chemical bond dissociation of OLED materials [5–7,14], or deteriorate metal/organic contacts [8,9,14]. The by-products generated by UV/HEV-induced photochemical reaction may also yield luminescent quenchers, nonradiative recombination centers, and deep charge traps in the emission layer , leading to degradation of device performance. Besides, UV/HEV irradiation might also influence some electron injection layers/materials (EIL) of OLEDs and/or induce migration of some EIL materials into the organic layer . Such UV/HEV-induced degradation would heavily affect the OLED panels’ performance, such as brightness, gray scale, color performance, lifetime, pixel shrinkage, and luminance-current-voltage(L-I-V) characteristics shift, etc.  Thus, an effective and large-area anti-UV/HEV technique and structure, that can protect OLEDs from UV/HEV-induced degradation and meanwhile maintain display performance, is strongly desired.
In order to consider how to integrate the UV/HEV-resistant (or blocking) structure into OLED panels without influencing their optical properties, it is rational to first consider the actual OLED panel architecture. As shown in Fig. 1(a), current OLED display panels are generally comprised of four different parts: the active-matrix backplanes, top-emitting OLEDs, the encapsulation layer, the circular polarizer, and the cover lens, etc. The active matrix backplanes are usually fabricated with silicon or metal oxide thin film transistors (TFTs) for driving OLEDs. Encapsulation is used to protect OLED displays from oxygen/moisture degradation, and is usually composed of a cover glass or thin-film layers of organic and inorganic materials. The circular polarizer is needed to reduce the ambient light reflection associated with metal electrodes and metal lines in OLED displays, and thus the contrast ratio of OLED panels can be substantially enhanced. Meanwhile, cover lens on the top of OLED panels, usually made of tempered glasses, provide the outmost protection (such as scratch resistance, anti-fouling, etc.) of panels and some other optical functionalities (such as anti-glare, anti-reflection, etc.). Accordingly, the UV/HEV resistance functionality may be incorporated in or on these different parts of OLED panels. First, direct realization of UV/HEV resistance functionality in OLEDs is less feasible since the thicknesses of the organic layers are in the nm scale, introducing additional layers directly on top of OLEDs could substantially impact optical performances of OLED displays, such as color, efficiency, and viewing angles, etc. Polarizers may provide partial UV/HEV resistance (see transmission spectrum of the circular polarizer in Fig. 1(b)), but the UV/HEV irradiation may also degrade polarizers themselves as they are often made of organic materials. Thus, for indoor or short-term outdoor applications, the polarizer may be sufficient to protect OLEDs. Yet, further protection is needed for long-term outdoor applications. Therefore, in order to prevent both polarizers and OLEDs from UV/HEV degradation, cover lens may be the ideal location to integrate UV/HEV resistance structures. Since the distance between the active OLEDs and the cover lens is much longer than the OLED coherence length, the additional optical functional layers shall not cause the extra interference with the already designed OLEDs or impact emission properties, making it easier to design UV/HEV resistance structure. In this study, we investigate designs of UV/HEV-resistant (or blocking) thin-film stack structures on OLED cover lens using more robust inorganic materials for protecting OLED displays from UV/HEV degradation.
2. Strategies to design the UV-blocking optical structures
Considering the protection against UV/HEV exposure without influencing/lowering R/G/B color performance of OLED displays, the transmission spectrum T(λ) of the UV/HEV-blocking structure is targeted to have a low (ideally zero) transmittance around and below 410-420 nm (UV-/HEV-blocking region), and meanwhile possess high transmittance for λ>440-450 nm (visible transmissive region). Accordingly, the transmission spectrum of the UV/HEV-blocking structure would have a sharp transition between the blocking region and transmissive region. For practical applications, the UV/HEV-blocking structure should be kept as simple and cost-effective as possible, and complicated and costly materials and fabrication should be avoided. Finding a single inorganic material that can simultaneously provide effective UV/HEV blocking (absorption), high visible transmission, and also steep transmission transition at exact wavelength ranges is indeed quite difficult, if not impossible. As such, combining UV absorption materials with certain proper optical structures deems necessary to fulfill all these requirements. The role of the optical structures is then to reflect the UV-/HEV light that cannot be effectively absorbed by the UV-/HEV-absorbing materials and to provide a sharp spectral transition between UV/HEV and visible regions. One rational approach is to construct the DBR (distributed Bragg reflector) structure with alternating high-index (nH)/low-index (nL) UV absorbing and dielectric materials, so that very low T in UV, precise control of T transition/drop around the near-UV/deep-blue wavelengths, and very high T in the visible can be achieved at the same time. DBR is a simple and powerful optical structure that can provide nearly 100% reflectivity around target wavelength (λT) and sharp transmission transition/drop. Accordingly, DBR is usually applied in optical components like perfect mirrors at certain wavelength ranges in Fabry-Perot spectroscopy or in optical fibers [16–20]. Conventional DBR is usually composed of pairs of high-index and low-index materials and the thickness of each layer is set at the corresponding quarter wavelength (λ/4n, n is refractive index) of the targeted resonant wavelength as illustrated in Fig. 2(a) [21,22]. To minimize the optical transmittance (i.e., full blocking) of the DBR, the electric field should be minimized or close to zero at the exiting interface. Since the total optical thickness of a high index/low index pair in DBR is half of λT, the electric field at the interface between two adjacent pairs should also be close to zero (i.e., the node). Meanwhile, the antinode would occur at the high-index/low-index interface in a pair as illustrated in Fig. 2(a). As the index difference becomes larger, the higher reflection induced by the high-index/low-index interface would induce a larger bandwidth for high reflection. Furthermore, as the number of DBR pair increases, the transition edge of the reflection band would become sharper [23,24].
In this study, TiO2 and SiOx prepared by RF sputtering were adopted as the high-index and the low-index materials, respectively, for the DBR design. Their optical properties are shown in Fig. 3(a)-(d). Figure 3(a) and Fig. 3(b) show the refractive indexes (n) and extinction coefficients (k) for TiO2 and SiOx, respectively, as characterized by spectroscopic ellipsometry. Sputtered TiO2 exhibits a high refractive index above 2.4 over the 300-800 nm range and even higher n of >2.5 for HEV to UV wavelengths; in contrast, SiOx exhibits a relatively low n of ∼1.5 over the spectral range of 300-800 nm. The index difference between TiO2 and SiOx is large enough to form DBR with a broad reflection bandwidth. Figure 3(c) and Fig. 3(d) show the transmittance (T), reflectance (R), and absorptance (A) spectra for a 30-nm-thick TiO2 film and a 60-nm-thick SiOx film on glass substrates, respectively. Both film thicknesses are roughly around λ/4n of λT. As seen in Fig. 3(a) and 3(c), TiO2 not only possesses a high refractive index but also absorbs the UV light below 350 nm. Therefore, with appropriate DBR designs, it is possible to achieve the UV/HEV-blocking function by reflecting HEV light and absorbing UV light when combining high-index/UV-absorbing TiO2 and low-index SiO2.
Based on the transfer matrix method (TMM) and geometrical optics , transmittance, reflectance, and absorptance (T-R-A) spectra of conventional DBR structures (i.e., like Fig. 2(a)) consisting of 3-8 pairs of λ/4n-thick TiO2 (32.6 nm)/SiOx (62.1 nm) with the target reflection resonant wavelength λT around 370 nm were calculated. Simulation results for 6-8 DBR pairs are shown as the black curves in Fig. 4(a)-(i), while those for 3-5 DBR pairs are shown in Fig. S1(a)-S1(i) in the Supplement 1. To compare the transmittance transition gradient of the UV-blocking structures, the wavelengths at 10% transmittance and 90% transmittance (λL and λH, respectively, as illustrated in Fig. 4(a)-(c)), the difference between λL and λH (Δλ=λH-λL), and the transmittance at 460 nm (around the peak wavelength of blue pixel of the state-of-the-art OLED panel used in iPhone) for various DBR structures are also defined and are summarized in Table S1 in the Supplement 1. These results show that upon increasing the pair number, λL would increase (thus giving better UV-/HEV-blocking capability), λH would decrease (thus giving the wider transmissive region), and Δλ would drop correspondingly (thus giving the steeper transmittance transition edge). These results suggest that ≥6 DBR pairs would be necessary to achieve the sharp enough transmission edge (e.g., Δλ of 30-40 nm around the 410-450 nm range) and relatively high peak transmission in the visible range. As shown in Fig. 4(a)-(c), conventional DBR structures having 6-8 pairs can achieve nearly perfect UV/HEV-blocking properties by reflecting the 350-420 nm light (Fig. 4(d)-(f)) and absorbing the UV light below 350 nm (Fig. 4(g)-(i)). Meanwhile, fewer pairs would lead to less sharp transmittance edges, risking lower transmission for blue OLEDs and poorer UV-blocking capability in the near-UV range, whereas more pairs would apparently increase fabrication complexity and cost, a problem often seen in commercial optical coatings using tens of DBR pairs.
Aside from blocking the transmission at the target (UV) resonant wavelength, the DBR structure would also cause constructive interference and undesired strong ripples in T/R spectra at visible wavelengths, which are detrimental to OLED display performances such as lower transmittance/luminance/efficiency and colors, etc. To reduce or even eliminate such (chromatic) ripples in the visible region, two modified DBR designs, labeled as 1st design and 2nd design in Fig. 2(b)–2(c), were further devised. Generally, strong spectral ripples at longer wavelengths are associated with the higher-order interference caused by the high-n/low-n structure. Accordingly, in the 1st modified DBR design (Fig. 2(b)), instead of the λ/4n thickness for each layer in the conventional DBR, the thicknesses of the high-index and low-index layers are made slightly smaller and larger than quarter resonant wavelength λ/4n and meanwhile keep the total optical thickness of one pair same as the conventional design (i.e., half of λT). Thicknesses of TiO2 (27 nm) and SiOx (73 nm) are determined by minimizing the undulation in transmittance in the visible range and keeping the transmittance edge sharp. By locating the standing wave peak slightly away from the high-n/low-n interface, the 1st modified DBR design is aimed to weaken collective reflection/interference at higher-order modes but to keep the similar resonant wavelength. As shown in Fig. 4(a)–4(c) for 6-8 DBR pairs (also see Fig. S1(a)-S1(i) in Supplement 1 for 3-5 DBR pairs), the transmittance edges and peaks of the 1st modified DBR design occur at almost same wavelengths as the conventional design, but the transmittance undulation in the transmission region is noticeably reduced.
Although the transmission undulation is to some degree reduced by the 1st modified DBR, it is, however, still not good enough for real uses. Ideally, a constant/flat T of >90% over the whole visible range is desired. To further remove transmittance ripples in the visible range, it is necessary to weaken/eliminate the constructive interference of higher-order modes (at λ>λT), while still keeping the UV/HEV blocking properties. The hint for the solution may be obtained by examining evolution of DBR properties upon stacking more pairs, as seen in Fig. 4 and also Fig. S1 in Supplement 1. As the phases of the reflection coefficients at interfaces of a single DBR pair is either 0o or180o, the stacking of DBR pairs would mainly enhance the magnitude of the total reflection coefficient without influencing the phase. Consequently, as seen in Fig. 4(d)–4(f) and Fig. S1(d)-S1(f) in Supplement 1, upon increasing the pair number, the reflection band at the target resonant wavelength are almost the same in both conventional and 1st modified DBRs. Differently, the reflection side bands would gradually blue-shift with stacking more pairs (Fig. S1(a)-S1(f) in Supplement 1 and Fig. 4(a)–4(f)), since the side bands are induced by the whole structure, not just by a single pair. Inspired by these observations, it is intuitive to devise the 2nd modified DBR design as in Fig. 2(c): (i) except the first and the last DBR pair in the overall 3-8 DBR pairs, the middle 1-6 pairs keep the same thicknesses as in the 1st design to block the light around the resonant wavelength; (ii) adjust the total/optical thicknesses/layer thicknesses of the first and the last pair to deviate from those of middle pairs and to destruct the overall reflection in side bands. The layer thicknesses of the first and last pairs were adjusted individually and sequentially by fixing the thicknesses of other layers and minimizing the undulation of the transmittance in the visible range. The roughly optimized overall structure of the 2nd design then consisted of the first pair of TiO2 (15 nm)/SiOx (65 nm) and the last pair of TiO2 (5 nm)/SiOx (40 nm), while the layer thicknesses in the middle pairs/layers were the same as those in the 1st design (TiO2/SiOx:27 nm/73 nm). As seen in Fig. 4(a)–4(i) for 6-8 pairs, reflection side bands and transmission ripples in the visible region are nearly eliminated, while steep transmittance edges are maintained and high T of >91% (approaching T∼92% of glass) is obtained over the whole visible range. In particular, high transmittance of >92% at the typical blue OLED pixel wavelength (460 nm) and λL of >410 nm are obtained with the pair number of >5 (see Table S1 in Supplement 1). To make sure that the UV-blocking structure would not influence the emission characteristics of the OLED display, in Fig. S2 of Supplement 1, measured electroluminescence (EL) spectra of R/G/B pixel OLED devices in the state-of-the-art iPhone panel are compared with calculated transmission spectra of 2nd modified DBR structures having 6 and 7 pairs. It is seen that even EL of the blue pixel safely falls within the high and flat transmittance region, making the 2nd modified DBR design suitable for UV-blocking and OLED display applications.
To further investigate the detailed mechanism in UV-blocking DBR designs, Fig. 5(a) and 5(b) show the simulated total electric field intensities (|E|) at different wavelengths for the 6-pair conventional DBR and 2nd modified DBR, respectively, with the incident intensity being set as unity. As seen in Fig. 5(a), the UV light at 300 nm would be effectively absorbed by the UV-absorbing/conventional DBR and the electric field at the exiting interface reaches a very low level (<10−2), giving extremely low transmittance. On the other hand, Fig. 5(b) shows that the 2nd design can also absorb the 300-nm UV light but the electric field intensity at the exiting interface is slightly larger than the conventional DBR since the total thickness of TiO2 is smaller. In spite of the slightly larger exiting field in the 2nd modified DBR, the UV/HEV transmission in Fig. 4(a)-4(c) is still sufficiently low for UV-blocking applications. For the target (reflection) resonant wavelength (370 nm), Fig. 5(a) clearly manifests that in the conventional DBR, the nodes in the field intensity occur at interfaces between two adjacent pairs and the antinodes occur at the high-n/low-n interface in the pair. For the 2nd modified DBR in Fig. 5(b), the electric field profile (for 370 nm) in the middle pairs are similar to that of the conventional DBR structure. It indicates in this structure, the middle four pairs are also similar to the conventional DBR and are responsible to fulfill the HEV-blocking properties. Finally, for the 493-nm (visible) light, which is the peak wavelength of the first ripple in the conventional DBR (Fig. 4(a)), the peak-to-valley modulation of the total electric field in the conventional DBR (Fig. 5(a)) is larger than that in the 2nd modified DBR (Fig. 5(b)). Since the total field is composed of waves propagating toward + z and -z, larger peak-to-valley modulation indicates that more similar intensities between + z and -z propagating waves (stronger collective reflection). Meanwhile, the low peak-to-valley modulation in the 2nd modified DBR shows that adjusting the layer thicknesses in the first pair and the last pair can effectively suppressing the intensity of the -z propagating (reflecting) wave and thus substantially enhance the overall transmittance.
Following the 2nd modified DBR design strategy, Fig. 6 shows calculated T-R-A spectra for 6-pair 2nd modified DBR structures with varied λT of 350 nm to 390 nm (while more detailed properties are summarized in Table S2 of Supplement 1). It is seen that boundaries/edges of their transmittance and reflection spectra can be readily blue-shifted with reducing the target resonant wavelength λT (simply by adjusting the layer thicknesses), if desired (e.g., when deeper blue OLED pixels is desired and adopted and thus a different balance between blue EL and UV blocking is required). This (easy and precise tuning of the transition wavelength and sharpness of the transmittance spectrum) perhaps is a particular advantage and convenience of using the DBR structure for UV blocking, compared to other approaches (e.g., simply using absorption properties of materials). From these results, it is also clear that for a blue OLED pixel with EL peaking around 460 nm, λT of 370 nm gives a reasonable balance between blue EL and UV blocking.
It is also worthy of stressing other advantages of the current modified DBR design compared to conventional DBR designs. Although DBR is a common technology, it is still generally difficult to achieve all the required optical properties for the current purpose, such as effective UV-/HEV-blocking capability, sharp transition of the transmittance spectrum, and high and flat transmittance in the visible light region without influencing the emission characteristics of the display. In the conventional DBR structure, usually the low index difference between the high-/low-index materials may be used to achieve high and flat transmittance (i.e., small modulation ripples) out of the target reflection band. However, tens of DBR pairs may be needed to achieve sharp transmittance transition and complete reflection in the reflection band (see Fig. S3(a) of Supplement 1). In addition, the narrow reflection band cannot cover the whole HEV or UV light region. On the other hand, with large index difference, the sharp transmittance transition and complete reflection around the target wavelength range can be achieved with much fewer DBR pairs (see Fig. S3(b) of Supplement 1), but strong ripples occurring in the transmission region (or strong reflection side bands) would strongly affect display color and efficiency and are not acceptable for display applications. In this work, based on the conventional high-index-contrast DBR structure, with carefully adjusting layer thicknesses of high-index and low-index layers to form the modified DBR structure, wide-band and full reflection in the target wavelength range, sharp transmittance transition, precise control of the transition location, and high and flat transmittance in the visible region can be all simultaneously achieved with only few DBR pairs. Such simple and practical optical thin-film design strategy is not commonly reported. In addition to display application (like this work), such optical thin-film design may also find wide use in other areas requiring high-performance optical thin-film coatings.
3. Fabrication and characterization of UV-blocking structures
Promising UV/HEV blocking DBRs having the 2nd modified DBR design and 6-7 DBR pairs were then fabricated and tested for confirming the simulation and design. Thin film stacks were deposited on glass substrates (Corning Eagle 2000) by RF sputtering using TiO2 (99.99% purity) and SiOx (99.999% purity) targets. The sputtering conditions were fixed at RF power of 150 W, Ar flow rate of 40 sccm and working pressure of 1.5 mTorr. Before the actual deposition, all targets were pre-sputtered for cleaning target surfaces. After alternately depositing TiO2 and SiOx for 6-7 times, transmittance spectra of DBR samples were measured by UV-Vis spectrophotometer (V-670, Jasco). Figure 7(a) and Fig. 7(b) show the cross-section SEM images of the fabricated 6- and 7-pair 2nd modified DBR structures, respectively, clearly confirming successful fabrication of precisely controlled DBR stacks.
Figure 8(a) and Fig. 8(b) show the transmittance spectra of the fabricated 6- and 7-pair 2nd modified DBR structures, respectively. The high and rather constant transmittance in the visible range and the rather sharp transmittance transition around 420-450 nm (HEV) are consistent with the simulation and design, confirming the usefulness of the DBR design strategy for OLED display applications. Photos in the insets of Fig. 8(a)–8(b) show photos of the corresponding DBR samples taken with a color image background (top) or a black image background (bottom), both under the normal lighting condition. These photos unambiguously demonstrate un-degraded color images through the UV/HEV-blocking structures and their low visible reflection under the black background, not compromising display viewing performances at all. In Fig. S4 of Supplement 1, original electroluminescence (EL) spectra of R/G/B pixel OLEDs in the state-of-the-art iPhone OLED panel are compared with those through the 6-pair and 7-pair 2nd modified DBR structures. Nearly same EL spectra and Commission internationale de l'éclairage (CIE) 1931 color coordinates (Table S2 of Supplement 1) confirm that the current UV/HEV-blocking DBR structures hardly influence EL spectra and colors of current OLED displays. As the transmittance in the EL color range is nearly same as the conventional cover glass (Fig. 1(a)), it would hardly affect the EL efficiency when assembled with the OLED display panel either.
4. Solar test and OLED’s characterization
Display makers develop OLED panels using I-V characteristics of OLEDs to determine panel’s gray scale, brightness, color performance, and power consumption, etc. Thus, if the OLEDs’ I-V characteristics are changed by solar irradiation/degradation, the panel’s display performances would deviate/degrade from the initially set specifications. One typical way to test the OLED panel’s resistance against sunlight degradation is to measure the voltage shifts (ΔV) at a specified current density vs. solar exposure cycles, following the rigorous IEC60068-2-5 standard with specified spectral light source intensities in Table 1. Figure 9(a)–9(c) show the three solar exposure test architectures conducted in this study: (a) architecture A having no polarizer and no UV-blocking structure, (b) architecture B having polarizer but no UV-blocking structure (i.e., the typical OLED panel structure), and (c) architecture C having both polarizer and UV-blocking DBR structure (6 and 7 DBR pairs, 2nd modified DBR in this study) on the cover lens. In this work, red top-emitting OLEDs obtained from AU Optronics Corporation were used for the solar irradiation tests; the organic materials and OLEDs were those used in real commercial wearable devices. During each solar exposure test cycle, samples were exposed to the simulated sunlight for 8 hours under a chamber temperature of 42°C and then stood in dark state for 16 hours at 25°C. Such test cycles were then repeated. Between repeated test cycles, the voltage shifts (ΔV) of OLEDs under the current density of 10 mA/cm2 were monitored by every five rounds.
Figure 10 shows ΔV vs. test cycles for the three testing architectures, in which 6-pair and 7-pair 2nd modified DBRs were used as the UV-blocking structure. OLEDs without any UV protection (architecture A) suffer large voltage shift (ΔV=2.62 V after 25 test cycles), clearly manifesting detrimental effect of sunlight irradiation on OLEDs. The polarizer in architecture B (conventional OLED panel structure) provides partial UV protection and thus reduces ΔV (ΔV=1.3∼1.5 V after 25 cycles). Finally, combining the polarizer and UV-blocking DBR (architecture C) provides further protection of OLED panels against solar degradation, and ΔV after 25 test cycles is further reduced down to ΔV∼ 0.8 V, confirming effectiveness of the designed UV-blocking DBRs herein. It is also noticed that both 6-pair and 7-pair UV-blocking DBRs structures provide similar protection against UV/HEV light. Table S4 in Supplement 1 further provides a summary of the luminance of the OLED device under a same operation voltage (4 V) before and after being subjected to the solar test architectures A, B, and C (with 6-pair 2nd modified DBR structure), again confirming effectiveness of the designed UV-blocking DBR structures.
In summary, we developed modified DBR structures composed of UV-absorbing and dielectric materials for protecting OLED panels against UV/HEV irradiation and degradation, thus strengthening their outdoor applications. By tuning thicknesses of high-index/low-index layers in the DBR pairs, we designed and fabricated 6-pair and 7-pair UV-blocking structures with several significant merits, such as nearly constant high transmittance of up to 91% over the whole spectral range, very sharp drop of transmittance around the deep-blue/near-UV region, and effective protection against UV/HEV light, making them suitable for incorporation into OLED display panels with minimal impacts on display colors and efficiencies, etc. Furthermore, we also studied the total electric fields in the modified DBR structure. The simulation results reveal that in the modified UV-blocking DBR structure, the reflection at visible wavelengths can be effectively suppressed by adjusting the thicknesses of the first and the last pair in the DBR structure. Such UV/HEV-blocking structures with high and flat transmittance in the visible range are applicable not only in displays but maybe also in the other areas requiring high-performance optical thin-film coating. Finally, solar test experiments of OLED panels verified usefulness of developed UV-blocking DBRs for reducing UV/HEV/solar-induced degradation and voltage shifts in OLED devices.
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest related to this article.
See Supplement 1 for supporting content.
1. Y. Zhang, M. M. A. Abdelmalek, Q. Wang, and H. Aziz, “Degradation mechanism in simplified phosphorescent organic light-emitting devices utilizing one material for hole transport and emitter host,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 103(6), 063307 (2013). [CrossRef]
2. H. J. O. Colditz, R. Kurt, and M. Büchel, “Photodegradation and wavelength dependency of blue polymer light-emitting diode devices,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 87(25), 253505 (2005). [CrossRef]
3. K. Thangaraju, J. Kumar, P. Amaladass, A. K. Mohanakrishnan, and V. Narayanan, “Study on photoluminescence from tris-(8-hydroxyquinoline) aluminum thin films and influence of light,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 89(8), 082106 (2006). [CrossRef]
4. R. Seifert, S. Scholz, B. Lüssem, and K. Leo, “Comparison of ultraviolet- and charge induced degradation phenomena in blue fluorescent organic light emitting diodes,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 97(1), 013308 (2010). [CrossRef]
5. Q. Wang, G. Williams, T. Tsui, and H. Aziz, “Photochemical deterioration of the organic/metal contacts in organic optoelectronic devices,” J. Appl. Phys. 112(6), 064502 (2012). [CrossRef]
6. S. Scholz, K. Walzer, and K. Leo, “Analysis of Complete Organic Semiconductor Devices by Laser Desorption/Ionization Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry,” Adv. Funct. Mater. 18(17), 2541–2547 (2008). [CrossRef]
7. F. P. Rosselli, W. G. Quirino, C. Legnani, V. L. Calil, K. C. Teixeira, A. A. Leitão, R. B. Capaz, M. Cremona, and C. A. Achete, “Experimental and theoretical investigation of tris-(8-hydroxy-quinolinate) aluminum (Alq3) photo degradation,” Org. Electron. 10(8), 1417–1423 (2009). [CrossRef]
8. Q. Wang, Y. Luo, and H. Aziz, “Photodegradation of the organic/metal cathode interface in organic light-emitting devices,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 97(6), 063309 (2010). [CrossRef]
9. Q. Wang, G. Williams, and H. Aziz, “Photo-degradation of the indium tin oxide (ITO)/organic interface in organic optoelectronic devices and a new outlook on the role of ITO surface treatments and interfacial layers in improving device stability,” Org. Electron. 13(10), 2075–2082 (2012). [CrossRef]
10. K. C. Lin, Y. H. Lin, B. K. Wang, W. K. Lee, H. H. Chen, Y. H. Song, L. W. Shih, and C. C. Wu, “P-175: Development of Anti-UV Structures for OLED Displays,” Dig. Tech. Pap. - Soc. Inf. Disp. Int. Symp. 50(1), 1891–1894 (2019). [CrossRef]
11. Q. Wang and H. Aziz, “Poor photo-stability of the organic/LiF/Al contact in organic optoelectronic devices,” Org. Electron. 12(9), 1571–1575 (2011). [CrossRef]
12. Y. Qiu and J. Qiao, “Photostability and morphological stability of hole transporting materials used in organic electroluminescence,” Thin Solid Films 372(1-2), 265–270 (2000). [CrossRef]
13. D. Y. Kondakov, W. C. Lenhart, and W. F. Nichols, “Operational degradation of organic light-emitting diodes: Mechanism and identification of chemical products,” J. Appl. Phys. 101(2), 024512 (2007). [CrossRef]
14. S. Scholz, D. Kondakov, B. Lüssem, and K. Leo, “Degradation Mechanisms and Reactions in Organic Light-Emitting Devices,” Chem. Rev. 115(16), 8449–8503 (2015). [CrossRef]
15. S. K. Kwon, J. H. Baek, H. C. Choi, S. K. Kim, R. Lampande, R. Pode, and J. H. Kwon, “Degradation of OLED performance by exposure to UV irradiation,” RSC Adv. 9(72), 42561–42568 (2019). [CrossRef]
16. S. Chao, W. H. Wang, and C. C. Lee, “Low-loss dielectric mirror with ion-beam-sputtered TiO2–SiO2 mixed films,” Appl. Opt. 40(13), 2177–2182 (2001). [CrossRef]
17. E. Garmire, “Theory of quarter-wave-stack dielectric mirrors used in a thin Fabry–Perot filter,” Appl. Opt. 42(27), 5442–5449 (2003). [CrossRef]
18. Y. Fink, J. N. Winn, S. Fan, C. Chen, J. Michel, J. D. Joannopoulos, and E. L. Thomas, “A Dielectric Omnidirectional Reflector,” Science 282(5394), 1679–1682 (1998). [CrossRef]
19. S. D. Hart, G. R. Maskaly, B. Temelkuran, P. H. Prideaux, J. D. Joannopoulos, and Y. Fink, “External Reflection from Omnidirectional Dielectric Mirror Fibers,” Science 296(5567), 510–513 (2002). [CrossRef]
20. J. T. Trauger, “Broadband dielectric mirror coatings for Fabry-Perot spectroscopy,” Appl. Opt. 15(12), 2998–3005 (1976). [CrossRef]
21. S. Chao, C. K. Chang, and J. S. Chen, “TiO2-SiO2 mixed films prepared by the fast alternating sputter method,” Appl. Opt. 30(22), 3233–3237 (1991). [CrossRef]
22. J. S. Chen, S. Chao, J. S. Kao, H. Niu, and C. H. Chen, “Mixed films of TiO2–SiO2 deposited by double electron-beam coevaporation,” Appl. Opt. 35(1), 90–96 (1996). [CrossRef]
23. D. I. Babic and S. W. Corzine, “Analytic Expressions for the Reflection Delay, Penetration Depth, and Absorptance of Quarter-Wave Dielectric Mirrors,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 28(2), 514–524 (1992). [CrossRef]
24. S. H. Kim and C. K. Hwangbo, “Design of omnidirectional high reflectors with quarter-wave dielectric stacks for optical telecommunication bands,” Appl. Opt. 41(16), 3187–3192 (2002). [CrossRef]
25. C. C. Katsidis and D. I. Siapkas, “General transfer-matrix method for optical multilayer systems with coherent, partially coherent, and incoherent interference,” Appl. Opt. 41(19), 3978–3987 (2002). [CrossRef]